Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

Indeed, Brenda.
It's taller than most of professional rugby second rows.
Their average height in 2009 was around 6'6 (197 cm).

[Lechmere]

Brenda
do you think Fleming went around with his name tattooed on his forehead?

Dvv
the average height of a second row is 6 foot 6 ?
much higher than I would have thought
interesting

[DVV]

Dvv
the average height of a second row is 6 foot 6 ?
much higher than I would have thought
interesting

In 2009 professionnal rugby, yes. 6'6.
At least, one French site say so.
Interesting, isn't it ?

A poor labourer born in 1859 was taller than the average professional second row of the 21st century, and went completely unnoticed.

I would have thought it would have been a bit shorter too. But on second thought, it's true that second rows are now rarely under 195 cm.

[Ben]

I see that the same people are going in for these tedious, lengthy "summation" posts again. These are invariably awash with repetition, and evidently written in the hope (or perhaps even the naive expectation) that the "opposition" will become demotivated, have a weaker capacity for repetition, and will not "bother" responding with a counter-"summation" of their own. But that hope will never, ever be realised, because I will never, ever tire of refuting the nonsense, insisted upon by a very small minority of aggressive posters, which continues to assert, despite overwhelming logic and common sense, that the ridiculous and improbable height entry must be correct.

And that's precisely what it is, incidentally - ridiculous and improbable.

It is borderline impossible to be 6'7" in height, 11 stone in weight and yet in "good" bodily health, especially if the individual concerned was not a famous actor or footballer, but a lunatic pauper, wandering the worst slum areas of London, apparently unable to take care of himself. It has been found necessary to argue over BMIs - and I'll continue to do so for another trillion pages of posts, if necessary - only because it offers a useful means of demonstrating the freakish and extraordinary height to weight ratio which would be necessary to accept if we endorse the Fleming entry as accurate.

It is extremely significant that only a very few people (perhaps four at most) with a long history of personal animosity towards myself, David, Sally and others are aggressively insistent upon the 6'7" entry being correct. As we've seen from the responses on this thread, there is rational and popular support for the contention that the 6'7" entry was most probably written in error, and they include a respected researcher with considerably more insight into the practices of Victorian registrars than the 6'7" purists. She, along with a number of others, have cited numerous reasons for accepting that the entry may well have been written in area, and they deserve better than to be dismissed as suspect theorists.

If we accept that the entry was meant to have been written 67 inches (Debs suggests that it was originally written that way and then mis-transcribed in the official record), it would be the equivalent of the far more common height of 5'7" inches. What a "coincidence" that such an explanation would make sense of the low weight, the reported detail that he was in good bodily health, and the fact that he had a full wardrobe of apparently fitting clothes and footwear (which was unlikely to have been the case if he was the freakishly skinny giant that others here are envisaging).

Do not expect anyone to tire of demolishing the "celebrity BMI" nonsense either. Peter Crouch was the same height as reported erroneously of Fleming, and for that reason is rightly considered amazingly tall considering how thin he is, and yet he is 8 pounds heavier than the weight reported of Fleming, giving him a BMi of 18.2, as opposed to Fleming's dangerously low 17.3. If I see Peter Crouch's name mentioned hereafter, I'll simply reproduce this paragraph verbatim.

Fisherman, if you’re going to pester “authorities” about the BMIs of celebrities and "beauty queens" in order to score brownie points obsessively on a message board, at least do so on another thread – preferably Pub Talk, given how tediously irrelevant it is do the original topic of the thread - which is “Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?”. I’m not “stopping” anything, and I don't care if you regard what I'm saying is nonsense. If you’re bored or exasperated, move on. I’m here until the nonsense stops, and if doesn’t, on I will go. If and when your contact does respond, do us a favour and post only your original email and his response, with no personal commentary from you please.

Lechmere, unless you have a reliable source attesting to Hardrada being 7 feet tall, I wouldn’t believe it if I were you. Similarly, I would avoid using Kosminski any sort of comparison, since we don’t know his height. You call him “puny”, but that really depends on his height. If he was short, his recorded weight could well have been in proportion, and thus nothing to write home about, BMI-wise.

As we’ve discovered from the article kindly posted by Debs, 6’7” was considered extremely tall – so tall in fact that it was speculated that the man in question, James Bradshaw, may have been the tallest man in England. Whether true or not, it was still considered tall enough to be part of a travelling circus or menagerie, which in Bradshaw’s case meant ditching his menial day job and earning money purely as a result of being paraded before the public for being exceptionally tall.

Imagine such a person being present in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, as Fleming unquestionably was (and almost certainly in the Victoria Home). The idea of such a height not being noticed is palpably ludicrous. As I have found necessary to point out multiple times in connection with Hutchinson’s “Astrakhan” man, these were extremely volatile times on already volatile streets. Anyone who appeared vaguely unusual and out-of-place became the target of aggressive and insistent curiosity. It wouldn’t have taken long for some wannabe vigilante to decide that the big scary giant who suddenly appeared in the neighbourhood must have dunnit. We can certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, ditch the suggestion that a 6’7” individual would have “blended into the background” of the 1888 East End.

It is improbable in the extreme that Kelly neglected to mention Fleming’s exceptional height, and that Barnett and Venturney would not, in turn, have related this detail in their police statement or inquest evidence. Extreme physical details always, without a single exception, become known about. It doesn’t matter how nebulous or elusive the character – in fact, the more nebulous and elusive the better – it was an obvious and inevitable talking point, and it would have reached peoples’ ears eventually. The fact that nothing of this nature happened in this case is yet another compelling indication that the real Joseph Fleming was of “normal” height.

Speaking of the ridiculous and improbable, we may also dispense with the idea that Kelly’s boyfriend was anyone other than the individual we’re discussing now. Barnett described a Joseph Fleming of Bethnal Green who worked in the building trade, and “our” Joseph Fleming meets all three criteria. The only other person who comes even vaguely close is an Edward Joseph Flemming, who was described as a “boot polisher” or “French finisher” or something of that nature, and who doesn’t fit the bill a anything like as well. I invite anyone who believes that the details reported by Barnett were “not exactly rarities” to have a good root around through the records and find another plasterer from Bethnal Green named Joseph Fleming. Good luck with that!

I have no idea how many boyfriends Kelly had. On the basis of Barnett’s evidence, and taking “boyfriend” to imply a serious relationship involving co-habiting, the recent ones would be Barnett himself, Morganstone and Fleming, with the rest being merely clients. It is quite clear that she was “fond” of the last mentioned, to borrow a phrase used in connection with Joseph Fleming (by Barnett) and “Joe” (by Julia Venturney). It is quite clear that both witnesses were referring to the same individual, and that Kelly had related the same detail to both of them. There is absolutely no basis for assuming that Venturney meant a different Joe.

I’ve already addressed the nonsensical assertion that the medical staff at Stone would routinely re-visit the first page to check for errors. Any evidence for this being standard practice? No. So let us be reasonable instead, and accept that whoever was responsible for updating Fleming’s records merely got his pen out and commenced writing at the next available blank spot. Lechmere has absolutely no basis for asserting that they weren’t written on “rough scraps” and then transcribed later. How can he possibly know this? If this was the final record, preserved as it was for history, I’d suggest we would fully expect the entries to have been copied from rough notes. Is it likely that the medical authorities would cart a great book around when visiting patients? No. Obviously not. They would have carried a note pad and made the official record later, and a simple error in the transcribing process is a perfectly reasonable solution for the 6’7” mistake. As above, 67 inches is the equivalent of the oh-so-normal 5 foot seven inches.

But we can keep going round in circles and see who gets that evidently coveted “last word” if you wish. Play that game if you want to stick around for an endless game of “yes it is” “no it isn’t, and we’ll see what it achieves.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
If we accept[ some don't] that Fleming, alias Evans, was Mary Kelly's ex, then the height points to the lower range 67''.
However we have the persecution complex held by this inmate, that people wished to do him harm, and he was being followed by people wishing to kill him. that might have derived from his height being the upper range 6'7''.
He may have been known to have been the last Ripper victims boyfriend in that area, and looked upon with suspicion,by him having abnormal height, and possibly showing sign's of increasing anxiety, brought about by inherited insanity.
As for the bodily weight v height.
We are looking at Asylum records 1893, not his body weight of 1888, or previous, which may have exceeded any weight shown on record , by a considerable amount, leaving his BMI, nothing out of the ordinary.
Because we have no factual, or verbal knowledge ,by any source of that period mentioning the height of the other 'Joe', it does not reject either height so where do we go from here?
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

But we can keep going round in circles and see who gets that evidently coveted “last word” if you wish. Play that game if you want to stick around for an endless game of “yes it is” “no it isn’t, and we’ll see what it achieves.

Invariably, you get the last word in and call any others wishing to do so some sort of game players. Please, you are as guilty as anyone of being repetitive and mindful of getting the last word in. The fact is, one camp finds it difficult to fathom a man being 6'7" and of, initially good health at a low body weight and another camp wants proof that this wasn't the case. It's that simple and a mistake that was meant to be 67 inches is nearly impossible, yet you cling to it. Why not 6'7" being enrolled into the wrong fellow's record? That is far more logical and if as you say records were never checked again until ripperology began, that error would have stuck. Really many possibilities here, but the wishing of one possibility to be so is sad and divisive.

Mike

[Sally]

I've been trying to think about this register entry of 6' 7" as if there was no other background information about the patient, to see if it made any difference to my perception - and I found that it did, slightly.

If I came across such a remarkable height in an infirmary record without any prior knowledge of that person; I think I would still be inclined to treat it with caution. I think that's sensible.

But I think I am more sceptical because we have background information about Fleming - I do think it's likely that this Fleming was Kelly's Fleming; biographical details match to the best of our knowledge.

He would have stood out a mile if he'd been that tall, in a social milieu where the average height of a man was over a foot shorter - and yet, that wasn't a feature of any witness account of the man. If he was the 'other Joe' who visited Kelly, people must have seen him.

It doesn't add up for me.

As for the infirmary records, perhaps it might be worth the time of somebody to take a closer look at the ledger, to see if the person who recorded Fleming's height as 6' 7" may perhaps have made a habit of substituting a 6 for a 5 - as I think has been suggested elsewhere.

One example alone (plausibly two, I suppose) is inconclusive.

Perhaps that might be (potentially at least) a way forward here? Otherwise, As it stands at the moment, I don't think the debate can go anywhere further.

[Ben]

It's that simple and a mistake that was meant to be 67 inches is nearly impossible, yet you cling to it. Why not 6'7" being enrolled into the wrong fellow's record?

Yep, that's a realistic possibility too.

The reason I found Debs' suggestion persuasive - and it certainly isn't "impossible" - is because it is based on actual experience of documents of this nature. It is experience I don't have, and I therefore defer to it. It is also significant, to my mind, that 67 inches equates to a far more common height (5'7") which makes considerably better sense of the other records, such as his weight. I never suggested it was the "only" possibility. I said it was a "perfectly reasonable solution", which yours is too. The only solution that isn't remotely reasonable is the unthinking, head-in-the-sand absolutist approach that asserts that the record must be correct.

Please, you are as guilty as anyone of being repetitive and mindful of getting the last word in

I seem to induce the posting mentality in others, certainly, but I'm simply highlighting the futility of expecting that "last man standing" approach to succeed.

However we have the persecution complex held by this inmate, that people wished to do him harm, and he was being followed by people wishing to kill him

Indeed we do, Richard, but being exceptionally tall doesn't usually result in pursuit by a lynch mob. If there was one person alive in 1888 who was unquestionably "being followed by people wishing to kill him" it was Jack the Ripper, and Jack would have known that only too well.

We are looking at Asylum records 1893, not his body weight of 1888, or previous, which may have exceeded any weight shown on record , by a considerable amount, leaving his BMI, nothing out of the ordinary.

But the point remains that when his BMI was out of the ordinary - shockingly so - his bodily health was described as "good", which just doesn't work.

Regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

He would have stood out a mile if he'd been that tall, in a social milieu where the average height of a man was over a foot shorter - and yet, that wasn't a feature of any witness account of the man.

i agree that his height would have been noticed, yet there are no witness accounts of the man at all. There are only a few mentions of his name, but nothing at all to suggest he's been seen by those few people. There was one statement of Kelly's being ill-used, but that sounds like something a woman (Kelly) might have said after a particular tiff rather than the reality of the situation. We have nothing to go on with the fellow.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
Obvious question then ''Was This inmate Jack''? , who suffered from delusions and had a persecution complex, regardless of his height, just by adding up the points.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

It's certainly a possibility, Richard.

Obviously there are still a lot of grey areas, but there is evidence that this particular mental patient, who "suffered from delusions and had a persecution complex", was also physically violent towards the most brutally murdered victim attributed to Jack the Ripper, and moved into the heart of the murder district in late 1888. Quite frankly, you'd be hard pressed to do much better in terms of suspects or "persons of interest", which is why I find it extremely irritating when certain people - not you - attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Incidentally, to offer a good indication of what "ill-use" meant, it is worth considering the antics of William Bury, who, after punching his wife so hard in the face that blood spattered against the wall, was implored by a family friend not to "ill-use the poor girl". Mary Kelly appeared to have "earned" her ill-use purely because she was cohabiting with Joseph Barnett.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
In a nutshell, we have the best candidate for a possible Jack the Ripper, since Hunting the killers identity first began.
Any person that was a intimate friend to Mary Kelly, who was declared insane[ albeit a few years after] and was said to ill-use , has to be suspect 'number one', unless found to not be, the person referred to as Joe.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I agree wholeheartedly, Richard.

One of the best, at any rate.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Sally]

...unless found to not be, the person referred to as Joe.

I thought 'the other Joe' was Joseph Isaacs.

No?

[Lechmere]

Ben
that spectacularly misinformed diatribe isn't worth responding to
(beyond this response of course)